Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-12-23

| been permitted to recover the land with
| out paying for the improvements made by
J him. Held: We know of no rule OF Law
which would entitle him to obtain com
pensation for the improvements than such
| es he is presumed to have received from
| the increased price which may have been
| paid for the l.nd st the trustees sale on
account Of the improvements. Affirmed
Stsyton, j.
A 81. and Dan Morrison vs.. the Insur-
srce Company of North America; appeal
from Ellis county. Suit to recover the
value OF policy of insurance. Every
policy holder in the absence OF fraud
| presentation or concealment, must
be held to have knowledge Of its con-
tents when he has opportunity to
examine it before he accepts it,
The pleadings Of parties should state
facts. The sverments Of legal concla-
SONS drawn from the facts stated, are in
no manner necessary to the full presenta-
ton of the right claimed. When en- in
surance policy contains provision as
follows: "The procuring Of insurance on
said property for more than its cash
value, or the having OF other
insurance thereon or any part
thereof, valid or invalid, prior or subse-
quent, not made known to this company
and consented TO herein = will render
this policy null and void" and it is
shown that subse Quently to the issuance
of said policy, the insured took out other
insurance on said property, but same
was done with the verbal consent
Of an agent of the company who is au-
thorized to give such consent only by liz
dorsement on the policy, the company
will be bound by such verbal consent of
it's agent, unless it Immediately repu-
dates the act of the agent in giving such
consent. Reversed and renanded. Stay
ton, J.
A. Wardlow ct al. VS.. G. B. Miller ct
al; appeal from Ellis county. The fact
that q married woman made valid parti-
ton under mistake OF her legal rights
in the land, does not vltiate 1t IS TO sub
sequent purchasers from the parties with
whom she made the division, unless they
had notice of the fact that she made the
division under such mistake, and would
not have consented to it had she been
aware of her legal rights. Reversed and
remsnded. Willie, c. J.
S. M. Williams VS.. the State ex rel,
e. III. Vssmer; appeal from Harris. This
was as information in the nature Of quo
werranto instituted by the state upon the
relation of E. Fl. Vasmer, its object beng
to GUST the appellant from the office OF
district clerk of Harris county, and to
place the relator therein. l. This is the
appropriate proceeding in such 8 case
and was properly returnsble to this ses-
sion Of this court. 2. Certain
tickets rejected by the managers of tile
election a. the top of which was printed
in bold words, democratic Ticket"
and about the center Of same was printed
in small type, "People's Ticket" were
offered in evidence over the objection OF
appellant, who claimed that said tickets
were illegal and void. Held: The tick
cts were legal and were properly admitted
ia the evidence. 3. The books of another
court may be received in evidence though
the record Of deeds cannot, as originsl
evidence. Tie latter are no more than
copies, and the original must be inaCcesi-
bic before copies can be admitted. No
error; sffirmed. Willie, c. J.
Sam Evans vs.. John D. Templeton; SD
peal from Tarrant. Appellee sued appel-
liant and G. D. Brown for the recovery Of
a lot in the city Of Fort Worth alleged to
have been conveyed by Evans to him in
1873; that his deed which bad been fled
for record, Was destroyed by fire in 1876;
that Evans again sold the lot to Brown,
together with smother lot opposite OF
same SIZE and value for $4,000, Of which
only about $500 had been paid, and prayg
for recovery Of the lot or it's value. Brown
admitted the purchase Ct the lots by him
as alleged, and the former pur-
chase by appellee, and asked tbs.
in the event Of the recovery by appel
lee that his notes to Evans be
Cancelled and delivered up. Evans plead
ed general denial and statute of limita-
The jury upon special issues found in sub
stance the allegations in plaintiffs petit
ton to be true and judgment WAS rem.
dered accordingly, snd that defendant
Brown should have his notes csnceled
when he paid his co-defendant Evans
sufficient additional amount to make his
payments amount to $1,000, the value OF
the other lot. Evans alone appeals. The
charges asked bV appellant were in every
respect erroneous. They would have
made the case to turn On the question
Of plaintiffs negligence in falling
to hsve his title established, and his deed
again recorded after its destruction. The
notice to creditors and subsequent pur-
chasers. Brown had not paid the purchase
money, as the amount paid by him was
not sufficient to cover the value OF the
other lot, and he was not q purchaser in
good faith. The second and fourth
charges asked were applicable only to q
state of facts, which the jury did not so
determine, and there was no injury to the
defendant in the refusal ct the court to
give them. Evans having conveyed the
lot to plsintif could not
claim the benefit Of the statute
OF three or five yesrs. The lot had been
enclosed in his field ever since his con-
veyance to plsintiff, TO the date of bis
sale TO Brown, end there was not such
adverse possession IS would set IN opera
ton the statute OF limitations against
plaintiff until the sale to Brown in 1884.
One who sells lot to be used as city
property which st the time is inclosed in
field cannot get up the statute OF limite-
tons sgninst the grantor merely because
the latter permits the same to remain in
the Enclosure. He must exercise some
notorious control over the same, and his
possession must not only be actual, but
also visible, continuous. notorious, dis
tinct and hostile, and OF such character
as to show unmistakably an assertion OF